Dear %Dr% %Yadav%,

Thank you very much for submitting your manuscript "Management of insecticides for use in disease vector control: Lessons from six countries in Asia and the Middle East" for consideration at PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases. As with all papers reviewed by the journal, your manuscript was reviewed by members of the editorial board and by several independent reviewers. The reviewers appreciated the attention to an important topic. Based on the reviews, we are likely to accept this manuscript for publication, providing that you modify the manuscript according to the review recommendations.

Please prepare and submit your revised manuscript within 30 days. If you anticipate any delay, please let us know the expected resubmission date by replying to this email.  

When you are ready to resubmit, please upload the following:

[1] A letter containing a detailed list of your responses to all review comments, and a description of the changes you have made in the manuscript. 

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out

[2] Two versions of the revised manuscript: one with either highlights or tracked changes denoting where the text has been changed; the other a clean version (uploaded as the manuscript file).

Important additional instructions are given below your reviewer comments.

Thank you again for your submission to our journal. We hope that our editorial process has been constructive so far, and we welcome your feedback at any time. Please don't hesitate to contact us if you have any questions or comments.

Sincerely,

Tiago Donatelli Serafim

Associate Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

Emily Gurley

Deputy Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

***********************

Points to be addressed:

1) Manuscript will benefit if tick born diseases are also mentioned.

2) Line131: Score% is vague. Authors should detail more.

3)Line 354: "manage managing"?

4) Lines 556-570: Authors should reinstate how they get to the conclusions stated on those sentences.

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Key Review Criteria Required for Acceptance?

As you describe the new analyses required for acceptance, please consider the following:

Methods

-Are the objectives of the study clearly articulated with a clear testable hypothesis stated?

-Is the study design appropriate to address the stated objectives?

-Is the population clearly described and appropriate for the hypothesis being tested?

-Is the sample size sufficient to ensure adequate power to address the hypothesis being tested?

-Were correct statistical analysis used to support conclusions?

-Are there concerns about ethical or regulatory requirements being met?

Reviewer #1: Yes, the objectives were stated properly.

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Minor revisions.

Reviewer #4: (No Response)

--------------------

Results

-Does the analysis presented match the analysis plan?

-Are the results clearly and completely presented?

-Are the figures (Tables, Images) of sufficient quality for clarity?

Reviewer #1: Results are clear and presented current situations success and failures in vector and disease management

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Minor revisions. Some references are missing in the tables. Please add them.

Reviewer #4: (No Response)

--------------------

Conclusions

-Are the conclusions supported by the data presented?

-Are the limitations of analysis clearly described?

-Do the authors discuss how these data can be helpful to advance our understanding of the topic under study?

-Is public health relevance addressed?

Reviewer #1: The authors could have suggested more conclusions which will help in better coordination at grass root level, state level, national and international level such as technical expertise role in entomology and epidemiology of diseases. They could suggested measures or bridging gaps of the above for elimination of disease and avoiding re introduction of diseases in respective countries.

Reviewer #2: It will be better if the authors conclude their findings in a succinct manner at the end of the discussion or separately mentioning the limitations

Reviewer #3: The discussion are focused mainly in Dengue and Malaria vector control but not leishmaniasis. Please discuss and contrast the lack of studies in leishmaniasis compared to Dengue and Malaria if needed.

Reviewer #4: (No Response)

--------------------

Editorial and Data Presentation Modifications?

Use this section for editorial suggestions as well as relatively minor modifications of existing data that would enhance clarity. If the only modifications needed are minor and/or editorial, you may wish to recommend “Minor Revision” or “Accept”.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Some minor edits necessary as indicated in the attached file

Reviewer #3: Minor revision

Reviewer #4: (No Response)

--------------------

Summary and General Comments

Use this section to provide overall comments, discuss strengths/weaknesses of the study, novelty, significance, general execution and scholarship. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. If requesting major revision, please articulate the new experiments that are needed.

Reviewer #1: Authors have well written regarding management of insecticides in selected countries. They could have mentioned in their discussion more about quality control during procurement. In Integrated vector management, checking efficacy of vector control operations like Indoor residual spray is very important to assess the role of vectors and their transmission. Correlation between entomological and epidemiological studies plays an important role in elimination, control, and re-introduction of disease. These studies have to be performed in all countries where vector control and epidemiological interventions are used. As mentioned, technical expertise is required. Entomology experts must be recruited at grass root level and national level also for proper guidance, vector identification and monitoring. This will also help in developing new vector control measures which can be introduced in Integrated vector management. Technical expertise can bridge the gap between international policy and bureaucracy in respective countries. Mainly national experts must play an important role in quality control, identification of resistance and assessing the efficacy of vector control used. Insecticide selection, rotation and mosaic usage has to be suggested according to the current requirement without any delays, which helps in better evaluation, management of disease outbreaks and transmission. The authors should have more focused on the above mentioned which will help in designing global vector control practices. The lessons learned for the studies in different countries should be used in an effective manner for prevention of endemicity in some countries.

Reviewer #2: This manuscript is timely and of high significance for formulating international/global policy for insecticide use management in the countries of different regions of WHO

Reviewer #3: The study titled "Management of insecticides for use in disease vector control: Lessons from six countries in Asia and the Middle East" gathered data from six countries with the goal to to assessed the effectivity of current vector control interventions. The authors showed the shortcomings in current vector control programs in these six countries, and the need for the proper application of current vector control interventions. The authors should discuss more about leishmaniasis programs and not only dengue and malaria programs, this would strengthen the main goal of the manuscript. The manuscript is well written, however, some references are missing and this needs to be corrected.

Reviewer #4: The manuscript by Dr. Yadav et al. brings an extremely relevant assessment of some characteristics of vector control programmes in six different countries. It brings an intersting perspective and raises fundamental issues to the improvement of similar national initiatives across the globe. It is very well designed, conducted, written. I have only very minor text edits (see file).

--------------------

PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

Reviewer #4: Yes: Fernando Ariel Genta

Figure Files:

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org.

Data Requirements:

Please note that, as a condition of publication, PLOS' data policy requires that you make available all data used to draw the conclusions outlined in your manuscript. Data must be deposited in an appropriate repository, included within the body of the manuscript, or uploaded as supporting information. This includes all numerical values that were used to generate graphs, histograms etc.. For an example see here: http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.1001908#s5.

Reproducibility:

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, PLOS recommends that you deposit laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see http://journals.plos.org/plosntds/s/submission-guidelines#loc-materials-and-methods

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: SciRep_DRforMosquito2.docx

Attachment

Submitted filename: PNTD-D-20-01641_reviewed.pdf

Attachment

Submitted filename: PNTD-D-20-01641_revised.pdf

Dear %Dr.% %Yadav%,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript 'Management of insecticides for use in disease vector control: Lessons from six countries in Asia and the Middle East' has been provisionally accepted for publication in PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases.

Before your manuscript can be formally accepted you will need to complete some formatting changes, which you will receive in a follow up email. A member of our team will be in touch with a set of requests.

Please note that your manuscript will not be scheduled for publication until you have made the required changes, so a swift response is appreciated.

IMPORTANT: The editorial review process is now complete. PLOS will only permit corrections to spelling, formatting or significant scientific errors from this point onwards. Requests for major changes, or any which affect the scientific understanding of your work, will cause delays to the publication date of your manuscript.

Should you, your institution's press office or the journal office choose to press release your paper, you will automatically be opted out of early publication. We ask that you notify us now if you or your institution is planning to press release the article. All press must be co-ordinated with PLOS.

Thank you again for supporting Open Access publishing; we are looking forward to publishing your work in PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases.

Best regards,

Tiago Donatelli Serafim

Associate Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

Emily Gurley

Deputy Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

***********************************************************

p.p1 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; line-height: 16.0px; font: 14.0px Arial; color: #323333; -webkit-text-stroke: #323333}span.s1 {font-kerning: none

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Key Review Criteria Required for Acceptance?

As you describe the new analyses required for acceptance, please consider the following:

Methods

-Are the objectives of the study clearly articulated with a clear testable hypothesis stated?

-Is the study design appropriate to address the stated objectives?

-Is the population clearly described and appropriate for the hypothesis being tested?

-Is the sample size sufficient to ensure adequate power to address the hypothesis being tested?

-Were correct statistical analysis used to support conclusions?

-Are there concerns about ethical or regulatory requirements being met?

Reviewer #2: Yes all the objectives of the study have been clearly articulated; the study design is appropriate covering 6 countries of South east Asia.

**********

Results

-Does the analysis presented match the analysis plan?

-Are the results clearly and completely presented?

-Are the figures (Tables, Images) of sufficient quality for clarity?

Reviewer #2: Yes results have been well compiled and inferences drawn. The tables and figure showing study countries is appropriate. The figure however is not sharp.

**********

Conclusions

-Are the conclusions supported by the data presented?

-Are the limitations of analysis clearly described?

-Do the authors discuss how these data can be helpful to advance our understanding of the topic under study?

-Is public health relevance addressed?

Reviewer #2: Conclusion is well written and is supported by data collated from 6 countries

**********

Editorial and Data Presentation Modifications?

Use this section for editorial suggestions as well as relatively minor modifications of existing data that would enhance clarity. If the only modifications needed are minor and/or editorial, you may wish to recommend “Minor Revision” or “Accept”.

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

Summary and General Comments

Use this section to provide overall comments, discuss strengths/weaknesses of the study, novelty, significance, general execution and scholarship. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. If requesting major revision, please articulate the new experiments that are needed.

Reviewer #2: Very well written manuscript with critical thought in the final revised version.

**********

PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #2: No